Federal judge gives boost to states on limiting vehicle emissions

Vermont judge rejects challenge by auto industry

Published 4:00 am, Wednesday, September 12, 2007

States can limit vehicle emissions of gases that contribute to global warming despite the Bush administration's refusal to do so, a federal judge ruled Wednesday, rejecting the auto industry's challenge to a Vermont statute and spurring optimism among supporters of a pioneering law in California.

In a 240-page decision, U.S. District Judge William Sessions in Montpelier, Vt., emphatically rejected automakers' central argument against the laws in both states - that the only way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to increase fuel economy, an area regulated exclusively by the federal government.

"Nothing in (federal law) indicates that Congress intended to displace emission regulation by California that would have an effect on fuel economy," Sessions said, noting that Vermont's law is identical to California's 2002 statute. He also denied the industry's claims that state regulation would make cars unaffordable and unsafe.

The ruling raises the stakes in a separate review of California's law by the Environmental Protection Agency. Sessions noted that the laws in California, Vermont and 10 other states that have followed the California model will become unenforceable if the EPA denies California a waiver allowing the state to impose stricter controls on air pollutants than the federal government does.

Elementary school in Oakland opens time capsule from 1927San Francisco Chronicle

Brides of March walk through San FranciscoSan Francisco Chronicle

WildCare rescues Western scrub jay from rodent glue trapWildCare

The Regulars: The CarpenterJessica Christian

Massive fire in San Francisco's North BeachDavid Essling

The EPA has been considering California's request for nearly two years. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has threatened to sue the federal agency unless it acts by Oct. 25.

"Today, we won in court, and yet the victory will be a hollow one if EPA succeeds in stalling and ultimately denying our request," said state Attorney General Jerry Brown, who argued California's case to the federal agency earlier this summer.

In light of the ruling, "the EPA is going to be hard-pressed to say that the (state) regulations aren't feasible or are too costly," said David Doniger, a lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council who helped to argue the Vermont case and is taking part in a similar lawsuit in California.

Related Stories

U.S. District Judge Anthony Ishii of Fresno has scheduled a hearing Oct. 22 on a suit by car manufacturers, who make the same arguments that they raised in Vermont. Although Sessions' ruling is not binding on Ishii, it should be persuasive, said Doniger and other environmentalists backing California's position.

"This decision should put the nail in the coffin of the failed arguments of the auto industry," said Sierra Club attorney David Bookbinder.

Schwarzenegger said in a statement that the ruling "marks another important victory in the fight against global warming. California and other states will no longer be blocked by those who stand in our way."

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers said it was considering an appeal. The organization's president, Dave McCurdy, renewed the argument that the state laws are the equivalent of miles-per-gallon standards and thus should be trumped by federal standards.

"Automakers support improving fuel economy standards nationally, rather than piecemeal," McCurdy said in a statement.

The business-sponsored Competitive Enterprise Institute said the ruling would force automakers to produce smaller and lighter cars that were less safe. The "real victims will be consumers, some of whom will pay with their lives," said Sam Kazman, the institute's general counsel.

The EPA did not respond to a request for comment.

Both the Vermont and California laws require makers of cars and light trucks to begin reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases - considered by the mainstream scientific community to be a cause of global warming - with the 2009 models and to achieve 30 percent reductions by 2016.

The lawsuit by auto manufacturers and dealers argued that the Vermont law conflicted with federal laws on air pollution and fuel economy and, by injecting states into an international issue, interfered with the president's authority over foreign policy.

Sessions, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton in 1995, held a 16-day, nonjury trial this spring. He then put the case on hold while the U.S. Supreme Court considered the Bush administration's claim that the EPA lacked authority over greenhouse gas emissions from cars.

The high court rejected that view in April, ruling 5-4 that the emissions were air pollutants and that the EPA must regulate them unless it comes up with scientific justifications not to act.

Sessions cited the Supreme Court ruling in Wednesday's decision, noting that the court found no conflict between regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy standards. He also said automakers have other ways to reduce the emissions besides increasing gas mileage - for example, using alternative fuels and other technological innovations.

The judge likewise dismissed industry arguments that the state controls would conflict with federal consumer and auto safety regulation by making cars more dangerous and less affordable.

The industry's expert witness testified that the state laws would increase car prices by $5,000 and force General Motors, DaimlerChrysler and Ford to stop selling cars in the affected states, but those assertions were unsupported by the evidence, Sessions said.

"It is improbable that an industry that prides itself on its modernity, flexibility and innovativeness will not be able to meet the requirements of the regulation," the judge said.

He cited testimony that increased fuel efficiency prompted by emissions regulation would save the average car customer $5,000 over the vehicle's lifetime, at current gasoline prices.

Sessions also said industry claims of interference with U.S. foreign policy were unfounded because the Bush administration, in presentations to international agencies, has cited efforts by California and other states as evidence of U.S. progress on global warming.

Regulating auto pollution

The ruling: A federal judge in Vermont upheld states' authority to regulate vehicle emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, considered causes of global warming.

The California case: A similar suit by automakers, raising the same challenges to an identical California law, is pending before a federal judge in Fresno. Environmental groups said Wednesday's ruling shows there is no need for a trial in the California case and that the suit should be dismissed. A hearing is scheduled Oct. 22.

The EPA: For nearly two years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been considering California's request for a waiver that would allow the state to enforce its emissions law, which is more stringent than federal standards. In April, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the EPA's argument that the agency lacked authority to regulate greenhouse gases. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has threatened to sue the EPA if it doesn't act on the California waiver by Oct. 25.

Read the ruling: U.S. District Judge William Sessions' 240-page decision can be found at: links.sfgate.com/ZTQ